Brian Harring wrote: [Mon Sep 04 2006, 01:04:21AM CDT] > > 33 (eclass restructuring) > > You left out the char indicating your intention here; 33 likely will > have to be revisited in light of original intentions for it and how > paludis has implemented their equiv (and no, that's not a potshot). > > 33 is bound to an EAPI bump most likely anyways, so probably will be > revisited when someone pushes a EAPI=1 glep (few months for me I'd > expect).
Thanks, that's a big help. It's "M" for now, w/ a note that future revisions are expected. > > 37 (virtuals deprecation) --> F? (Isn't this already implemented?) > No, actually; > A) no package.prefer > B) (bad jason), the consistancy section, it actually was a req of the > metapkg conversion that portages resolver go either -D by default, or > metapkgs be marked in some fashion so that portage knows to always go > one level deeper when encountering a metapkg. 37 is now marked "d" since reality and the GLEP seem to have diverged. > > 49 (alt package manager 1) --> R (by council; sane API preferred) > > 50 (alt package manager 2) --> R (by council; sane API preferred) > > Might want to clarify the "sane API preferred" bit. Sorry, I should have been more precise. The council rejected both GLEPs in favor of starting with a Gentoo package manager API (which spb is slowly assembling), and then requiring in-tree package managers to implement that API. Or at least that was my understanding of that meeting. Thanks! -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpFSsnN2ZzQr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
